Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

[2024] UKUT 00417 (IAC)

Fecha: 27-Jun-2024

For the purposes of paragraphs 276A(b)(i) and 276B(i) of the immigration rules, the leave to remain relied upon to satisfy the requirement for ten years’ lawful residence must have been lawful, that i

For the purposes of paragraphs 276A(b)(i) and 276B(i) of the immigration rules, the leave to remain relied upon to satisfy the requirement for ten years’ lawful residence must have been lawful, that is, not obtained by deception or otherwise in breach of immigration laws.

Judge Mandalia

Background

The applicant is a national of China. The background to the claim is not in issue and is helpfully summarised in the Skeleton Argument settled by Mr Walsh in readiness for the hearing before me.

“2.
[The applicant] arrived in the UK on 5 August 2006 using the name of ‘Ming Hui Ou’ and applied for asylum. That application was refused on 3 April 2007. He was granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) on 29 March 2017 under the Legacy Programme in the name of ‘Ming Hui Ou’. The Applicant’s ILR was revoked under section 76(2) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on 7 August 2019 as the Applicant had used deception with the Home Office in his applications for asylum and leave to remain. The deception was the use of a false identity, Ming Hui Ou. The Applicant’s true identity is Shangping He.
3.
On 1 April 2021, the Applicant applied for leave to remain on the basis of Family Life (he has a British citizen child resident in the UK). This was granted on 30 April 2021, valid to 29 October 2023. Leave has been further extended under the same category.
4.
On 6 April 2022 the Applicant applied for ILR on the basis of his long residence in the UK under paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules. This was refused on 13 September 2022 (and 21 December 2022)…”